To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[Crick]

I know what I said concerning AGW and a tropspheric hotspot and I know what the article I posted said as well. I can't tell if I failed to repeat it as many times as necessary or perhaps didn't use a large enough crayon that YOU could be expected to know what I said and what that article said, but I'm going to assume that, as has nearly always been the case, the problem is on your end. Therefore, you have called me a liar without cause, making you a grade AAA asshole that owes me an apology. And owes yourself a fucking education.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I know what I said concerning AGW and a tropspheric hotspot and I know what the article I posted said as well. I can't tell if I failed to repeat it as many times as necessary or perhaps didn't use a large enough crayon that YOU could be expected to know what I said and what that article said, but I'm going to assume that, as has nearly always been the case, the problem is on your end. Therefore, you have called me a liar without cause, making you a grade AAA asshole that owes me an apology. And owes yourself a fucking education.

Crick, you actually said AGW postulated a "Cool spot" then posted an article confirming a hot spot.

When you're telling the truth you never have to keep track of what you said

 

[bripat9643]

And this evidence of a scam and of altered data... is where, Frank?

The temperature records, for one. They have been "homogenized" until they are unrecognizable. All the various scams committed by the AGW cult of been reported in this forum ad nauseum. Pretending you aren't aware of them only shows how dishonest you are.

 

[bripat9643]

Do not validate his bullshit. The hotspot is NOT a requirement of GHG warming. Stratospheric cooling is.

The hotspot is a requirement for any warming. Solar-caused, GHG-caused, magic-caused, it should be there for any warming from any cause. It's a fingerprint of any warming. Stratospheric cooling is the fingerprint unique to GHG warming.

Thus, SSDD kind of destroys his own natural-causes theories by claiming it's not there.

'Course, it is there, so it's all moot.

See? RSS satellite model data, which every denier spent years swearing was the most perfect data ever created by humans.

The above data shows no warming since 1998. You dishonestly included a line which shows the average since 1978.

 

[bripat9643]

And this evidence of a scam and of altered data... is where, Frank?

Here's some:

 

[Crick]

I know what I said concerning AGW and a tropspheric hotspot and I know what the article I posted said as well. I can't tell if I failed to repeat it as many times as necessary or perhaps didn't use a large enough crayon that YOU could be expected to know what I said and what that article said, but I'm going to assume that, as has nearly always been the case, the problem is on your end. Therefore, you have called me a liar without cause, making you a grade AAA asshole that owes me an apology. And owes yourself a fucking education.

Crick, you actually said AGW postulated a "Cool spot" then posted an article confirming a hot spot.

When you're telling the truth you never have to keep track of what you said

How come you can never seem to comprehend what anyone else ever says.

TROPOSPHERIC HOTSPOT: Indicates the planet is warming
STRATOSPHERIC COOLING: Inidcates planet is being warmed by the greenhouse effect.

Maybe you should print that up and tape it to the wall above your monitor.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I know what I said concerning AGW and a tropspheric hotspot and I know what the article I posted said as well. I can't tell if I failed to repeat it as many times as necessary or perhaps didn't use a large enough crayon that YOU could be expected to know what I said and what that article said, but I'm going to assume that, as has nearly always been the case, the problem is on your end. Therefore, you have called me a liar without cause, making you a grade AAA asshole that owes me an apology. And owes yourself a fucking education.

Crick, you actually said AGW postulated a "Cool spot" then posted an article confirming a hot spot.

When you're telling the truth you never have to keep track of what you said

How come you can never seem to comprehend what anyone else ever says.

TROPOSPHERIC HOTSPOT: Indicates the planet is warming
STRATOSPHERIC COOLING: Inidcates planet is being warmed by the greenhouse effect.

Maybe you should print that up and tape it to the wall above your monitor.

So, now you're saying there IS a hot spot?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick, get out a pad and write down your last 8 posts, see if you can make any sense out of your Hot Spot/No Hot Spot Controversy that's raging in your mind

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is

 

[Wuwei]

And this evidence of a scam and of altered data... is where, Frank?

Here's some:

Anybody can post graphs. Graphs are never evidence unless you quote your source. Blogs are not sources. What is your scientific source.

 

[bripat9643]

And this evidence of a scam and of altered data... is where, Frank?

Here's some:

Anybody can post graphs. Graphs are never evidence unless you quote your source. Blogs are not sources. What is your scientific source.

NASA is the source of both graphs.

 

[Crick]

Crick, get out a pad and write down your last 8 posts, see if you can make any sense out of your Hot Spot/No Hot Spot Controversy that's raging in your mind

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is

Fuck you Frank. You are just too stupid to deal with. I might as well be talking to my dog.

 

[Crick]

And this evidence of a scam and of altered data... is where, Frank?

The temperature records, for one. They have been "homogenized" until they are unrecognizable. All the various scams committed by the AGW cult of been reported in this forum ad nauseum. Pretending you aren't aware of them only shows how dishonest you are.

What about the temperature records Paddie? What do you mean "homogenized"? Does homogenizing them make the past colder and the present warmer? Does homogenizing them allow thousands of scientists to all do their independent, physics-based research without running into conflicts or non-sequiturs or discontinuities? Let's look up the word, maybe that'll help.

HOMOGENIZE:
verb (used with object), homogenized, homogenizing.
1.
to form by blending unlike elements; make homogeneous.
2.
to prepare an emulsion, as by reducing the size of the fat globules in(milk or cream) in order to distribute them equally throughout.
3.
to make uniform or similar, as in composition or function:
to homogenize school systems.
4.
Metallurgy. to subject (metal) to high temperature to ensure uniformdiffusion of components.

Hmm... so why, exactly, would the thousands of conspiring climate scientists in your grand fucking conspiracy want to do that? What does that accomplish for them?

You haven't told us jack shit. You want us to believe the INSANE story that thousands of scientists have been twisting these numbers around but the ONLY evidence you have is that YOU FUCKING THINK THEY HAVE.

Get the fuck away from me you ignorant trollop.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick, get out a pad and write down your last 8 posts, see if you can make any sense out of your Hot Spot/No Hot Spot Controversy that's raging in your mind

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is

Fuck you Frank. You are just too stupid to deal with. I might as well be talking to my dog.

Does AGWCult theory suppose an atmospheric hot spot.

Yes or no

 

[mamooth]

The above data shows no warming since 1998. You dishonestly included a line which shows the average since 1978.

So what you're saying is your stupid cult theory fails unless you flagrantly and dishonestly cherrypick, like you just demanded.

The rational and honest people see what sort of scam you're trying to pull. Doing so might earn you brownie points with your fellow cultists, but it's not fooling anyone else.

 

[bripat9643]

The above data shows no warming since 1998. You dishonestly included a line which shows the average since 1978.

So what you're saying is your stupid cult theory fails unless you flagrantly and dishonestly cherrypick, like you just demanded.

The rational and honest people see what sort of scam you're trying to pull. Doing so might earn you brownie points with your fellow cultists, but it's not fooling anyone else.

No. If you're going to show what the trend is since 1998, you don't include data from 1978. That's basic math, not "cherry picking."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The above data shows no warming since 1998. You dishonestly included a line which shows the average since 1978.

So what you're saying is your stupid cult theory fails unless you flagrantly and dishonestly cherrypick, like you just demanded.

The rational and honest people see what sort of scam you're trying to pull. Doing so might earn you brownie points with your fellow cultists, but it's not fooling anyone else.

Tell 'em about the shifting baseline!

 

[mamooth]

No. If you're going to show what the trend is since 1998, you don't include data from 1978. That's basic math, not "cherry picking."

That's nice. But nobody else has any interest in showing the "trend since 1998", so nobody cares. All the honest people want to show the long-term trend, not something cherrypicked to start at a year convenient to you.

Oh, if you extended that graph to right now, it would be warmer than 1998. So that's another way that your cherrypick fails.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The observations, which showed a 2 decade Pause, we're clearly a DENIER!!! funded by the Koch Brother and DESERVED to get adjusted by Karl et al

 

[bripat9643]

No. If you're going to show what the trend is since 1998, you don't include data from 1978. That's basic math, not "cherry picking."

That's nice. But nobody else has any interest in showing the "trend since 1998", so nobody cares. All the honest people want to show the long-term trend, not something cherrypicked to start at a year convenient to you.

Oh, if you extended that graph to right now, it would be warmer than 1998. So that's another way that your cherrypick fails.

Anyone whose interested in the truth would want to know that the trend since 1998 is cooling, not warming. That blows all your hocus-pocus theories out of the water.

It isn't warmer right now than 1998.

 

[jc456]

I know what I said concerning AGW and a tropspheric hotspot and I know what the article I posted said as well. I can't tell if I failed to repeat it as many times as necessary or perhaps didn't use a large enough crayon that YOU could be expected to know what I said and what that article said, but I'm going to assume that, as has nearly always been the case, the problem is on your end. Therefore, you have called me a liar without cause, making you a grade AAA asshole that owes me an apology. And owes yourself a fucking education.

Well if you deny that you wrote both, then indeed you are a liar. It's amazing what you are trying to do. Typical libturd behavior though. Congrats liar